Page 1 of 1
Forget about s.t.a.l.k.e.r.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:24 pm
by Eraser
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60359
Publisher THQ has confirmed reports that GSC Gameworld's toxic PC first-person shooter S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl will not be released until April 2006 at the earliest.
The game's been delayed a number of times, but THQ wants to give it the best chance possible and clearly sees the idea of pushing it for late 2005 - which is going to be a crowded period, to say the least - as counterproductive.
"We think that's going to be a ground breaking title when we launch it and we want to make sure there's enough time in the oven for it," boss-man Brian Farrell said. "We want to make sure it has the absolute highest possible game quality," he added, rather boringly.
The result is that THQ doesn't expect to ship it in its current (2006) fiscal year, which ends on March 31st.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R, unveiled some years ago, is set in the ruins around Russia's most famous nuclear facility, where lots of mutant nasties have risen to prominence. Visually, it's been looking mighty special whenever we've seen it, but understandably it's starting to look less and less groundbreaking with each passing year. We still have high hopes for it, however; and we'll let you know when we hear something concrete. Something concrete surrounding Chernobyl - there's a novel concept.
This gonna be the new Duke Nukem Forever
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:32 pm
by o'dium
When i read that, I can only think:
"With the amount if high quality games coming out at this time, we are delaying the release so it sells even better!"
STALKER is a cool game, but it IS a risky game as well because its so different. And lets face it there are lot of high profile games coming out soon.
The latest leaked build of STALKER is supposed to be impressive.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:02 pm
by glossy
They're right, by mid-2006 we're going to see it and say "pfft". If the gameplay is good, though, then that will be the saviour.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:26 pm
by Eraser
Problem being that these days people aren't interesting in good gameplay anymore. It's all about graphics now.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:29 pm
by seremtan
i was having a good day until read this. i hate you eraser
this made me lol though
...he added, rather boringly.
i don't think it will necessarily be the new DNF. remember HL2 was delayed and delayed but when it finally appeared (about 18 months after the bink vids were released) it kicked inordinate amounts of derriere. only thing that bothers me is the possibility that by the time it actually does come out, i'll need yet another GFX upgrade (though hopefully by then a 7600 AGP will be out at a midrange price).
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:32 pm
by seremtan
Eraser wrote:Problem being that these days people aren't interesting in good gameplay anymore. It's all about graphics now.
depends on who you mean by 'people'. no game stands long without good gameplay, no matter how good the graphics. graphics impress long enough to make someone buy the game, but if the gameplay sucks the replay value goes down and the game just gets forgotten in the end. the graphics are just there to sell it.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:42 pm
by o'dium
Case in point, Doom 3. Leading graphics, dire gameplay. Got a few hours of everybodies time, now it sits on the shelf gathering dust.
Yet I still play games I had 5 years ago... Funny.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:47 pm
by Eraser
True, but the fact that a game like Madagascar does fairly well while it's actually a really bad game proves the opposite again. It's not about the graphics there I think, but the fact that it stars characters from a cute animation movie.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:52 pm
by o'dium
No matter waht of course it will always be about marketing.
The same can be said in the console war. The PS2 is clearly the worst by a long shot, followed by the gamecube, then the Xbox at the top. Yet Sony markets the Ps2 as "must have" and its always in your face, always has adverts on, always in mags etc etc. Nintendo did jack shit before the DS ad's most people hadn't even heard of a game cube. Microsoft did make ads for xbox but not as many as sony.
Those last figures reflect exactly sales. Sony leads in sales even though its worse, because kids think they NEED to have a ps2 to be cool, even though its outdated. Then microsoft, and then down the bottom, Ninty.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:59 pm
by Don Carlos
not forgetting the PS2 had 12 months sales advantage over the xbox
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:00 pm
by o'dium
Don Carlos wrote:not forgetting the PS2 had 12 months sales advantage over the xbox
Who is talking in the long run, I'm talking on a daily base. People want PS2, they dont want the other two. Why? Because the PS2 is better, they are told. Hmm.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:05 pm
by dzjepp
Or maybe it's because people feel the games they play are better (from experience). Hmm. (And no I'm not talking about gfx, who gives a shit about visuals anyway). =p=p=p
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:06 pm
by o'dium
Its the pad, actually, that gets me the most. Its awful on a PS2, I ant play first person games with it, its to lose. DEAD ZOOOOOONE FFS.
But yes, the graphics are teh suck as well :P
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:07 pm
by dzjepp
Growing up with a psone pad I've learned to love it and had no problems with it. I know with many people it's a love situation but some really hate it, so it's up to personall taste really.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:11 pm
by o'dium
I gew up with a ps-one pad, too. But i was also heavily into the n64 and dreamcast, so i learned to use the analog over the dpad earlier on. When the Duel Shock pad came around, i thought the analog sticks were to lose. I couldn't aim for shit with it. Then after playing on the xbox for eons, i grew to love the sticks because they were perfect to use.
Re: Forget about s.t.a.l.k.e.r.
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:31 pm
by rep
Eraser wrote:This gonna be the new Duke Nukem Forever
But the old DNF still holds that title.